MURPHY’S LORE
by James T. Murphy
Hon. Joseph R. Biden
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President,
From time to time busy folks need to stop and reassess goals; to take a timeout from the daily grind and evaluate where they are and whether that place actually reflects one’s stated intentions. It appears at this point that the declaration that “unity is the path forward” was either a pretense, or only directed at those in accord with the stratagem. While it is recognized that as President you get to select the playlist, it is clear that not all partygoers dance to the chosen tunes. It is also clear now that your words of January 20, 2021 were not much more than cliches, boilerplate “assurances” that the new administration would strive to present an affair that all patrons could and would participate in.
All indications divulge a neglect to unify, whatever that was intended to mean, and to whomever it was directed. The policies from day one bespeak an enterprise, unlike your formerly middle of the road self, more resolute in the ascendency of the progressive politic, in what has now become an unveiled bid to secure dominance for years to come. And swept up in all this, you are permitting lefties more dominant than Whitey Ford or Tom Glavine to do all the pitching, while you hang out in the dugout seemingly, but not really, calling the shots. Nor is this surveillance of the first hundred days intended as a strictly partisan lecture.
But a case in point. Your recent rhapsody regarding Georgia’s newly enacted voting law as “pernicious”, “un-American” and “utterly racist”, in the first instance is hardly any of those things as it actually provides greater access to the most fundamental freedom of a free society. It is clear that your comments were not based in reality and merely reverberate backroom idealogues.
The Election Integrity Act of 2021, the key word being integrity, actually expands voting in most counties of the Peach State. Although it requires an ID for absentee voters, this requirement, for in person voters, is nothing new, and not unlike say showing an ID at the will-call window. Now in Georgia, if a voter does not have a driver’s license or other form of identification, the legislation requires the county clerks to provide a free ID card. In the alternative, absentee voters can include the last four digits of their social security number along with the ballot and their vote will be counted; hardly a “pernicious” “un-American” or “utterly racist” scheme. But framing it as such seems to be the point. The intent of such a description goes hand in hand with the current goings on at the Southern Border. Those undocumented among us would clearly not be able to satisfy such a hassle free prerequisite, and therefore would be excluded from the voting process. It seems a hard stretch at best to call even this “utterly racist”, unless of course your position is in disregard of all things constitutional, and focuses on a pernicious, there’s that word again, system of electing only those who would control all aspects of a free society, to their own advantage only. And the reality is that suggesting wannabe voters among minority populations are not capable of participating in a program so simple to navigate, which is what is being declared, is the real racism here.
Back to the statute. The number of lock boxes and locations for use by absentee voters are reduced, but again same can hardly be said to be restrictive, and certainly not “systemic racial terrorism.” Your words? Or perhaps merely spoken by you. Other changes such as food and drink distribution to voters while waiting on line to vote, adjustments to deal with the long lines, a reconstituted election board and faster result reporting requirements are among provisions to actually provide more uniformity and fairness to the process. So in essence, instead of uniting, it seems the intent of the criticism was to fan the flames of division, a classic gambit of an emerging authoritarian game plan. In this instance, and others, you have fallen into that political cauldron heated by hyperbole and bombast, an oratory meant to stir deep enmity, and certainly not to unite; in essence the very same thing complained of with respect to your predecessor.
All this is not to say there are no problems between the races. There are. But can we stop using the term “racist” for anything the cancellers, wokies and now “your” administration, disagree with? One is hard-pressed to identify present day programs of governmental and private assistance which as a guiding factor do not include anti-discriminatory policies based on race, creed, gender and an ever widening category of protected classes, as it hould be in America. Wherever one stands on the issues however, bantering about a discourse which proclaims distortions for political gain is anathema to a professed aim of unity, unless of course the unification is directed only at party officials in power at any specific time. Although such a manner of communication may be indigenous to the political arena, we can and must do better, both blue and red.